Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, I don't have a "mistaken view". I lived this and I know how it works. That is the general setup BY LAW in my state and probably in others.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dysgenic
What if parent A has no job and zero income? According to what you are saying, parent A should then have their drivers license suspended and then be thrown in jail for failure to support their child. Since we all know that doesn't happen, effectively Parent A is not obligated to support their child.
Stop with the hyperbole. My ex had no job and no income. He actually SAID that to the judge trying to get out of paying support--that this was why he couldn't pay child support. The judge said, "OK, then your child support is $50 a week until such time as your income changes and you can pay a more reasonable amount." In other words--GET A JOB!!!!! He eventually did that once he realized the free ride was over, but he still rarely paid child support.
Whether it's Parent A or Parent B, "Get a job" is the answer.
Now, in your made-up situation, if Parent A usually doesn't have a job because that was the arrangement while they were married--Parent B would support everyone, Parent A would stay at home. They decide to get divorced for whatever reason. Well, a person who hasn't had a job in many years cannot be expected to find one in a day.
This happened to my friend. She was married, husband persuaded her to quit her job and stay home with the kids. (Actually told her to sue her employer, which did not work out.) Marriage ends. Her husband, who had been the sole breadwinner, was obligated to pay child support and ALIMONY FOR A PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS to give the ex-wife an opportunity to go to school/learn some skills to get a job. (She didn't, the alimony ended, and she is struggling now with a crappy job--but that's on her.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by dysgenic
Chew on this for a second: Parent A can literally pay ZERO for years and years and nothing will happen to them whatsoever, in fact they won't even be ordered to get a job. But if parent B doesn't (can't) fork over half their check for 2 weeks they will have their drivers license suspended and be thrown in jail if they can't come up with the money.
Factually, the custodial parent is not obligated to support their child.
How often does this happen, though? And how many parents have you ever heard of who have actually been "thrown in jail" for not "forking over half their check?" That's just not realistic. If there is no income, how is the jobless Parent A paying for housing and food? If it's through public assistance, that IS their income. But that's a whole other situation. I'm talking about normal intelligent people who work for a living.
No, a custodial parent is not obligated by default when they assume custody. If this were the case custodial parents with no job or income would have their drivers licenses suspended and then thrown in jail. You don't need itemization or a separate account to prove that a custodial parent with an income of zero isn't financially supporting their child. As to the bolded, if this is true isn't this all the more reason to require that custodial parents financially support their children?
I'll now ask you for the 4th time-
Do you think it's a good thing that custodial parents are not obligated to financially support their children- not even one dollar or one penny? Do you think this is good for children? Do you think it's good parenting to refuse to financially support your child- not even one dollar or one penny? Do you think it's good that the courts support some of those that refuse to financially support their children?
I can't answe your question because it is beyond comprehension that you would think the custodial parent is not contributing when they are the one with the lions share of the responsibilities.
But, I'll bite: How would that court-ordered financial responsibility look in practical terms? The court spelling out that the custodial parent is expected to buy everything not covered by child support? Submitting proof of purchase for all expenses that exceed child support? Send a check to the government and have it redistributed back to themselves to support the children?
1. You are wrong about taking a custodial parent to court for an accounting of the money. The courts official position is that the money can be spent on anything whether child related or not. The NCP is granted zero say in the allocation of the money and there is no remedy for failure to spend the money on the child(ren).
I looked this up because I thought I had read somewhere along the line that an NCP can demand an accounting, especially if he or she suspects that the CP is misusing the money. It varies from state to state and within those variations are other variations, so that's not necessarily true. My bad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dysgenic
2. Visitation may be 'laid out' in the agreement, but there is no practical method of enforcing this. For myself, I've spent 20k in legal fees over the past 5 years trying to hold my ex accountable for following the parenting plan. I won't say I've gotten nowhere but it's been very time consuming and costly to get very lackluster results. Of course my daughter is the one who suffers but the truth is the court doesn't care about her at all.
Well, I am truly sorry to hear this. It is sad when parents play stupid games that only hurt the kids. Despite my ex's unwillingness to be a responsible husband or father during our marriage, we were able to arrange the visitation without any sort of written-out "parenting plan". Before the divorce, we had to meet with a panel to help us work out a parenting plan, and we told them that we were just sort of making it up as we went. They said great, wrote it as "Visitation is as agreed to by both parties" and told us if that didn't work out in the future, come back.
If he wanted to see her on the weekend and she had nothing going on, that was fine. SHE usually made the decision. He came to her school plays and concerts and conferences and sat with me, things he could never be bothered with when we were married.
In effect, by throwing him out, I GAVE her a father she never had before. She thanks me for that.
Despite our amicable terms for visitation, he avoided paying child support. He is just a man who does not think he has to pay for the basics of life. The only reason he has a place to live is that he is a building super and the apartment is part of his salary.
I chose not to pursue it through the courts, because it would have angered him so much that it might have destroyed his relationship with his daughter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dysgenic
3. Why don't you and your ex share 50/50 custody, splitting the time between your house and his? How is it fair or good for your child for her to grow up without a Dad?
That would have been FINE, except exactly what "house" do you think an unemployed alcoholic had to live in himself, let alone have a safe place for a child to stay?
Short version: He had gone downhill. I said "Rehab or leave", he said, "You make me leave and I will take that f***ing kid and disappear and you will never see her again." Cops came. He was out.
Understand how maybe it wasn't "good or fair" for her to grow up with a Dad in the house?
Eventually, because he was required to undergo a treatment program before he could have unsupervised visits--and he came to realize that he now had to support HIMSELF--he pulled himself together enough to get a job, had a decent place to live, and she had her own room at his place. He was 20 miles away and it would not have been feasible at that point to split time 50/50, because he would have had to cart her 20 miles roundtrip to school in NY/NJ commuter traffic several days a week, and he wasn't going to do that. He did not ask for it, and frankly, it's not something we ever considered. Besides, while he learned not to drink when she was around, he still did when she wasn't, and her living with him would have impacted his bar time after work. Not being sarcastic, being realistic. The addiction takes priority.
Last edited by Mightyqueen801; 02-01-2017 at 01:04 PM..
No, I don't have a "mistaken view". I lived this and I know how it works. That is the general setup BY LAW in my state and probably in others.
With all due respect, yes you do have a mistaken view.
Quote:
Stop with the hyperbole. My ex had no job and no income. He actually SAID that to the judge trying to get out of paying support--that this was why he couldn't pay child support. The judge said, "OK, then your child support is $50 a week until such time as your income changes and you can pay a more reasonable amount." In other words--GET A JOB!!!!! He eventually did that once he realized the free ride was over, but he still rarely paid child support.
I think we can both agree that the court will force the non custodial parent to financially support their child. But the court will not for the custodial parent to do so. Do you think this is right and do you think this is good for children?
Quote:
Whether it's Parent A or Parent B, "Get a job" is the answer.
It may be your answer, it may be my answer, but it is NOT the courts answer for custodial parents. The courts will not force custodial parents to get a job.
Quote:
Now, in your made-up situation, if Parent A usually doesn't have a job because that was the arrangement while they were married--Parent B would support everyone, Parent A would stay at home. They decide to get divorced for whatever reason. Well, a person who hasn't had a job in many years cannot be expected to find one in a day.
Custodial parents aren't ever expected to find a job by the courts, so the time it takes to find a new job isn't the problem.
This happened to my friend. She was married, husband persuaded her to quit her job and stay home with the kids. (Actually told her to sue her employer, which did not work out.) Marriage ends. Her husband, who had been the sole breadwinner, was obligated to pay child support and ALIMONY FOR A PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS to give the ex-wife an opportunity to go to school/learn some skills to get a job. (She didn't, the alimony ended, and she is struggling now with a crappy job--but that's on her.)
Quote:
How often does this happen, though? And how many parents have you ever heard of who have actually been "thrown in jail" for not "forking over half their check?" That's just not realistic. If there is no income, how is the jobless Parent A paying for housing and food? If it's through public assistance, that IS their income. But that's a whole other situation. I'm talking about normal intelligent people who work for a living
In my state is happens everyday. At one point I got behind by $500 on my child support, and I was paying every single week, AND the reason I had lost my job was because of my ex who had made a false allegation against me in which I was proven innocent; the Judge was willing to throw me in jail for 30 days. At another time I was current on my child support, didn't owe a dollar, and the Judge was willing to throw me in jail for failure to pay her attorney fees that never should have been awarded in the first place.
Do you think a man or woman should be forced to pay child support to the custodial parent while no being allowed access to their children? I personally think if you have to pay child support you must be allowed to see you children, because any parent that cares enough to support their kid financially also wants to spend time with them in person. But I don't see why you should be forced to support a kid that you're not even allowed to see (either by the other parent or whoever).
Yes, the support is meant for their children. It is a moral obligation to support your children. It is a moral obligation to provide your children with access to both parents.
Just because one parent is an immoral asshat does not mean that the other parent has to be.
Your kids will figure it out when they are older that you were there for them financially during their youth.
GO TO COURT to get access to your children, but don't punish them to spite the ex.
With all due respect, yes you do have a mistaken view.
I think we can both agree that the court will force the non custodial parent to financially support their child. But the court will not for the custodial parent to do so. Do you think this is right and do you think this is good for children?
It may be your answer, it may be my answer, but it is NOT the courts answer for custodial parents. The courts will not force custodial parents to get a job.
Custodial parents aren't ever expected to find a job by the courts, so the time it takes to find a new job isn't the problem.
This happened to my friend. She was married, husband persuaded her to quit her job and stay home with the kids. (Actually told her to sue her employer, which did not work out.) Marriage ends. Her husband, who had been the sole breadwinner, was obligated to pay child support and ALIMONY FOR A PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS to give the ex-wife an opportunity to go to school/learn some skills to get a job. (She didn't, the alimony ended, and she is struggling now with a crappy job--but that's on her.)
In my state is happens everyday. At one point I got behind by $500 on my child support, and I was paying every single week, AND the reason I had lost my job was because of my ex who had made a false allegation against me in which I was proven innocent; the Judge was willing to throw me in jail for 30 days. At another time I was current on my child support, didn't owe a dollar, and the Judge was willing to throw me in jail for failure to pay her attorney fees that never should have been awarded in the first place.
Look, I am not going to argue any further with you, because our experiences have been on the opposite sides. I am a CP who had to do almost ALL the supporting, and you are an NCP who has had to do almost all the supporting.
Maybe what it boils down to do is that some people just get over, and the rest of us get screwed.
I feel bad about your difficulty getting time with your daughter. That is just not right, and I hope as she grows older she makes the effort to establish a closer relationship with you. Good luck.
I can't answe your question because it is beyond comprehension that you would think the custodial parent is not contributing when they are the one with the lions share of the responsibilities.
I did not say that, please don't put words in my mouth. What I said is that the courts do not require the custodial parent to financially support their children. This is proven by the fact that courts do not require custodial parents with zero income to get a job.
Quote:
But, I'll bite: How would that court-ordered financial responsibility look in practical terms? The court spelling out that the custodial parent is expected to buy everything not covered by child support? Submitting proof of purchase for all expenses that exceed child support? Send a check to the government and have it redistributed back to themselves to support the children?
There are a million ways you could do it. I believe the best thing for the children would be 50/50 default custody, both parties are responsible for the children on their own time. Medicals and extracurriculars could be split by percentage based on income.
At a minimum, as a start you could start requiring custodial parents with zero income to work ft subject to the same remedies that non custodial parents face if they don't pay- suspension of drivers license and jail.
BTW, you should still haven't answered my question, asked for the 5th time:
Do you think its right that custodial parents are not required by the court to support their children- not even one dollar or one penny? Do you think this is good for children? You think its right for courts to support custodial parents that refuse to financially support their children- not even one dollar or one penny?
Yes, the support is meant for their children. It is a moral obligation to support your children. It is a moral obligation to provide your children with access to both parents.
Just because one parent is an immoral asshat does not mean that the other parent has to be.
Your kids will figure it out when they are older that you were there for them financially during their youth.
GO TO COURT to get access to your children, but don't punish them to spite the ex.
I looked this up because I thought I had read somewhere along the line that an NCP can demand an accounting, especially if he or she suspects that the CP is misusing the money. It varies from state to state and within those variations are other variations, so that's not necessarily true. My bad.
Well, I am truly sorry to hear this. It is sad when parents play stupid games that only hurt the kids. Despite my ex's unwillingness to be a responsible husband or father during our marriage, we were able to arrange the visitation without any sort of written-out "parenting plan". Before the divorce, we had to meet with a panel to help us work out a parenting plan, and we told them that we were just sort of making it up as we went. They said great, wrote it as "Visitation is as agreed to by both parties" and told us if that didn't work out in the future, come back.
If he wanted to see her on the weekend and she had nothing going on, that was fine. SHE usually made the decision. He came to her school plays and concerts and conferences and sat with me, things he could never be bothered with when we were married.
In effect, by throwing him out, I GAVE her a father she never had before. She thanks me for that.
Despite our amicable terms for visitation, he avoided paying child support. He is just a man who does not think he has to pay for the basics of life. The only reason he has a place to live is that he is a building super and the apartment is part of his salary.
I chose not to pursue it through the courts, because it would have angered him so much that it might have destroyed his relationship with his daughter.
That would have been FINE, except exactly what "house" do you think an unemployed alcoholic had to live in himself, let alone have a safe place for a child to stay?
Short version: He had gone downhill. I said "Rehab or leave", he said, "You make me leave and I will take that f***ing kid and disappear and you will never see her again." Cops came. He was out.
Understand how maybe it wasn't "good or fair" for her to grow up with a Dad in the house?
Eventually, because he was required to undergo a treatment program before he could have unsupervised visits--and he came to realize that he now had to support HIMSELF--he pulled himself together enough to get a job, had a decent place to live, and she had her own room at his place. He was 20 miles away and it would not have been feasible at that point to split time 50/50, because he would have had to cart her 20 miles roundtrip to school in NY/NJ commuter traffic several days a week, and he wasn't going to do that. He did not ask for it, and frankly, it's not something we ever considered. Besides, while he learned not to drink when she was around, he still did when she wasn't, and her living with him would have impacted his bar time after work. Not being sarcastic, being realistic. The addiction takes priority.
I really think based on this post that you are probably a good parent. Sounds like your ex has some issues, which must have been tough for your kid.
I did not say that, please don't put words in my mouth. What I said is that the courts do not require the custodial parent to financially support their children. This is proven by the fact that courts do not require custodial parents with zero income to get a job.
There are a million ways you could do it. I believe the best thing for the children would be 50/50 default custody, both parties are responsible for the children on their own time. Medicals and extracurriculars could be split by percentage based on income.
At a minimum, as a start you could start requiring custodial parents with zero income to work ft subject to the same remedies that non custodial parents face if they don't pay- suspension of drivers license and jail.
BTW, you should still haven't answered my question, asked for the 5th time:
Do you think its right that custodial parents are not required by the court to support their children- not even one dollar or one penny? Do you think this is good for children? You think its right for courts to support custodial parents that refuse to financially support their children- not even one dollar or one penny?
I think no one is answering this because it doesn't ring true. It wasn't true for ME--I most certainly WAS required to support my child. It was never a question, because I always supported her without being "required". But I held the larger share of income, and so I was required to take on the larger share of our daughter's support. And because he was not employed at the time of the divorce--his share, too.
As I outlined in the formula I posted, the cost of the support is allocated according to income:
See Page 3, "How does the court determine the amount of the child support obligation?"
Now, this seems to be YOUR situation, that your ex is not supporting your child because she has no income.
So, how does she live? How does she pay for housing and food and utilities if she has no income? There is something missing in the story.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
